Hey Guys, Look at The HCSB

Re: 1 Samuel 10:27
Robert Alter notes the phrase, featuring a Hebrew word meaning, “This one,” (zeh) is contemptuous.”
He translates it: “How will this one deliver us?”
“The David Story” (59).

Gesenius’ Lexicon (239), adds that the phrase “…is used in the sense of despising, and as expressing contempt towards some one.

The word, “fellow” (NIV/TNIV) seems so dignified, you can almost hear their English accents.

Rob

 

Rippon, I like guy.

It's a kool departure from the customs of biblishville.

 

They should have just called it SBCB (The SBC Bible) instead of HCSB.

 

Is Christ called a 'guy' in the HCSB? If not then this is non sequitur. I see nothing wrong with the word as it is used in the referenced cases.

 

Unneeded shot, gb93433. Rippon, your last comment in post #6 is off-base, as well.

Since Holman happens to the oldest Bible publishing house in the United States (from 1738), and publishes multiple Bible editions (as well as varied reference works), including the CSB, KJV, RVR, and RV1909, all of which are known as 'Holman Bibles', there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this designation.

Incidentally, the nomenclature of the HCSB has now been 'changed' to merely CSB, which is more in line with most other versions and editions, by removing the name of the publisher from the name of the version, itself.

I will grant that it is kind of hard to keep up with the name designations and the constantly evolving designations, without a big scorecard, #2 pencil and a large eraser.

Suffice it to say that yes, the SBC through her agencies, does now wholly 'own' "Holman", and the CSB, and all rights thereunto, just as the Lockman Foundation and Zondervan own the rights to the NASB, the ISB and Zondervan own the rights to the NIV, Thomas Nelson owns the rights to the NKJV, and yes, the Church of England and the English crown, along with Oxford and Cambridge still 'own' the rights to the KJV, at least in the United Kingdom. There is nothing improper about any of these. And you or I can buy most any of the above, no questions asked, at most of your friendly local Christian bookstore(s), even if it is 'Lifeway' or 'Family'.

FTR, the NKJV is more of a 'Baptist' Bible, than is the CSB.

Ed

 

"we will have a major translation we can control" --Southern Baptist seminary president R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

 

You might like to quote the entire context of that phrase (which, incidentally I believe I know) rather than having a 'straw-man' of an unspoken 'pretext', here.

FTR, I do not either own or normally use the HCSB, at all, although I will occasionally cite it from 'bible gateway' if there is an appropriate or extremely good rendering of a passage, IMO.

Ed

 

For the whole of Mohler's statements regarding the HCSB, see

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=13580

 

Yeah, I suppose we'll have to go with gal too, but as you say guys tends to be generic.

 

Mexdeaf, I'm disappointed with guys like Dr. Mohler who have sidelined the TNIV.

It's unfortunate.

 

I found it interesting what he said, "[However,] the changes in the last several months have convinced me that in the end this is an important thing for Southern Baptists to do -- if for no other reason than that we will have a major translation we can control."

Later he said.

"Translators, Mohler said, are wrong when they argue that a Bible translation must use "street language."

"We are being told that if we are going to translate the Bible into the vernacular, it has to be what we would call street language," he said. "But is that the way Scripture should be translated?"

The answer, he said, should be no. He pointed to the type of Greek in which the New Testament was written as an example."

 

Well, all I can say is, "To each their own." I am pretty comfortable with his choices of versions- NAS, ESV, HCSB; as well as with the KJV and NKJV.

 

In his New Testament Theology which I just got in the mail, Schreiner cites the TNIV as one of his texts. Good so far...

 

Dr. Schreiner's primary text is the ESV, but he relies heavily on the NRSV.

I a perusal of 888pgs, excluding bibliography and so on, I found only one reference to he TNIV on page 732, which is favorable (1 Cor 11:33).

Instead he cites mostly from the NIV.

Here's the grind: the same disputed texts in the TNIV are evident in the NRSV (Genesis 1:26-27 | Genesis 5:2 | Psalm 1:1-3 | Psalm 8:3-8 | Psalm 34:20 | Proverbs 5:21 | Matthew 7:3-5 | Luke 17:3 | John 14:23 | Acts 20:28-30 | 1 Corinthians 14:28 | 1 Corinthians 15:21| Hebrews 2:17 | James 1:12 | Revelation 3:20 | Revelation 22:18.

It is inconsistent to continue using the NRSV and at the same time, be anti-TNIV.

Dr. Schreiner should have never included the TNIV as one of his secondary texts.